Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
? This is true and irrelevant.
You can pretend there wasn't broad international outrage at October 7th, and a wish for the perpetrators to face justice, if you want. But there transparently was. I'm not really terribly interested in efforts to absolve far-right theocratic murderers.
So you're backing off the claim that the ICC needed to issue arrest warrants for Palestinians in order to preserve its legitimacy?
No. To governments across the world, warrants requested solely for the Israeli PM/defence minister and not for the perpetrators of October 7th-- who those governments overwhelmingly want to face retribution-- would lack credibility. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to be seen to be willing to pursue perpetrators of crimes against humanity regardless of affiliation.
It also immediately defuses any partisan dismissals in Israel's defence, which were always very likely.
If one wants the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant taken seriously or potentially actioned in future, this was the best chance. And that's what matters most. Ensuring some other theocrat murderers of a different stripe don't get any criticism at the same time is... uhrm, not a particular aim that matters.
Last edited:
At the same time though, can’t really expect to kick a dog for over seven decades and not have it bite back once in a while. People talk about it like it was such a surprise and so appalling but most of that is attributed to the lies involving rapes and beheadings in the midst of the attack. Ultimately the bottom line is it was by no means a random occurrence or without provocation.
Last edited:
True, but people like Haniyeh aren't in that position, pushed to the end of his tether and desperate. These three have themselves been kicking that same dog for 19 of those years-- in Haniyeh's case, safely from abroad. And in this instance they anticipated and intended for the wildly disproportionate retaliation-- the ultimate dog-kicking.
I thought it was more Sinwar, who was imprisoned for 23 years and incredibly bitterly motivated, but suppose they’re basically one and the same.
In the end Israel received the justification to do what they’ve likely wanted to ever since it was created; only now with a hell of a lot more collateral damage.
While it is not surprising that you have no problem with equating oppression and resistance to oppression, or indeed punishing a resistance leader on dubious grounds, the evidence for this:
and moreover the evidence that this is somehow an overriding concern outside of white countries is extraordinarily thin. Also, that legal group you mentioned earlier as an example- Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights- is based in a white country. Don't know if you noticed that.
I didn't, but carry on.
OK, but you often substitute wishful thinking for analysis, so I don't think you're the best judge of this-- especially since outrage was pretty universal, including non-white countries. Though honestly even if it wasn't an overriding concern, no international government seems to give a shit to leap to their defence, and I fail to see a great reason to shield murderous theocrats either. If it helps defuse defences of Israel (and it does), then all to the good.
I did indeed, and with exec. Committee members with professional experience in Palestine and Iraq. And they've done a great deal more for Palestinian people than you (or I) ever have.
Last edited:
no
including about things that weren't even true, yes
Yes, who cares about having consistent standards when we can punish someone whose politics are informed by his religion.
And yet they're not evidence of a non-white country desire to arbitrarily punish Hamas.
And about things that were true. Like the EDIT: 750 massacred civilians.
"Informed by his religion", now there's a joke of a euphemism if ever I heard one.
You're arguing for inconsistent application here. An exclusion for mass murder or war crimes depending on the stripe of the perpetrators or personal sympathy for their declared motive.
Last edited:
"And about things that were true. [Another falsehood]."
ok
It is actually relevant to international law that Hamas is a Palestinian resistance group while Israel is a settler colonial occupier. It is also relevant that among the list of crimes the Palestinian individuals are meant to have committed, at least one seems to be fabricated.
Let me translate that for you. Whichever side wins and doesn't execute the other side's leaders gets to hand over the other side's leaders IF they feel like it. Even that is suspect given the anger in the region. Hamas would likely holocaust Israel in its entirety, and the IDF would likely just torture, and then execute Sinwar, Deif, and drone strike Haniyeh. Note I am not talking about the civilians here.
No one cares about the ICC unless they lose.
You'd like to deny the killings, in a way Hamas itself haven't? A bold choice but OK.
Well, that depends. Because of course the 'resistance group' in question is one that took power illegally by force, with the assistance of the power they're supposedly resisting.
But yes, states and other groups are subject to different standards in international law. Funnily enough, none of those standards exempt them from culpability for the mass extrajudicial killing of civilians.
Last edited:
